Truth Magazine

By Greg Groves

Jesus said in John 4:23, “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.” What does worshiping in spirit and truth entail?

First of all, to worship “in spirit” involves two things. First, it involves “spiritual worship.” In John 4:24, Jesus went on to say, “God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”  The word “spirit” stands in contrast to the external worship of the Old Testament.  In the Old Testament, the worship had to do with the external man, the physical. It consisted of a physical structure (the tabernacle), special clothing for the priests, lamp stands, burning of incense, instruments of music, and animal sacrifices. All of this had to do with the physical.

The New Testament worship has to do with the inward part of man, his spiritual makeup. All Christians are priests who offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Pet. 2:5). Our prayers are as sweet incense rising up to God (Rev. 5:8). Our music is making melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19).

Secondly, worshiping God “in spirit” involves worshiping with the right disposition. “In spirit” has to do with the condition of one’s mind when he worships. The worship of God must come from the heart, with genuine love for God. We need to make sure that our worship does not come from a desire to be noticed and praised by men. Jesus said that is what the scribes and Pharisees were doing in Matthew 23. They continued to comply with all the outward ordinances, but not for the right purpose. We need to make sure we have the right frame of mind in worship.

To worship God “in truth” means to worship God in accord with truth, as the truth directs. The truth (God’s word, John 17:17) is the only authority by which we can acceptably worship God. Many people stumble in their service to God because they are disobedient to the Word. Again, we use the Jews as a classic example of vain worship. In Matthew 15:7-9 Jesus said of them, “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, Saying: These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” They failed in both parts of true worship. When one worships with the traditions and doctrines of men, it is a hypocritical worship. If we truly loved God, we would not use the traditions and doctrines of men. We are only hypocrites when we claim otherwise.

The truth authorizes five items of worship assemblies.

• The Lord’s supper is to be observed every first day of the week in memory of the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:23-26, Acts 20:7).
• We are to give of our means as we have materially prospered (2 Cor. 9:7-14).
• Prayers are to be offered in praise and thanksgiving to God (1 Cor. 14:15).
• We are to glorify God in singing (Col. 3:16).
• The teaching of God’s Word is to be done (Acts 20:7).

All the sincerity in the world will not justify one act in religion unless truth is present. Why are there so many varying forms of worship today? Because people have taken liberty with God’s word. They have added their own wishes and desires rather than what God himself wants.

The Bible instructs us repeatedly to beware of men. In  Matthew 7:15, Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”

One of the saddest stories in the Bible is found in 1 Kings 13:15-24. God sent a young prophet to King Jeroboam with a message and God told the prophet not to eat bread or drink water in that land and not to return the same way he came. The prophet followed these commands until an older prophet told him a lie that God had told him it was all right for the young prophet to eat with him. The young prophet died, not because of wickedness or lack of sincerity, but by believing a lie.

Believing a lie has terrible consequences. We must realize that we can be deceived too and that we should always test what is said like the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Paul tells us to “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5: 21). We need to read and study for ourselves instead of relying on someone else to spoon-feed us our beliefs.

We cannot judge a thing to be true just because a fellow man said it. The young prophet took the word of another man; a fellow prophet and it cost him his life. We need to realize that preachers can be wrong. Apollos stands as a good example of that. In Acts 18:24-26, we are told of Apollos that he was “an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures.” He was “fervent in spirit” but “he knew only the baptism of John.” And Aquila and Priscilla heard him and took him aside and taught him “the way of God more accurately.” Despite the fact that Apollos was a good, if not great speaker, he had not been taught the whole truth of God’s word and had to be taught. Elders can be wrong also. Paul told the elders from the church in Ephesus, “Among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:30). That can still happen today just as it did then. Men have many differing ideas on what constitutes true worship. However, Jesus summed up true worship in one simple statement. “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Are you striving to be a true worshiper of God?

By Bobby Graham

In case you’re wondering, this article has nothing to do with Washington Irving’s fictional character Ichabod Crane, but it concerns the Ichabod in 1 Samuel 4:21. When Eli was judging Israel, the Philistines defeated God’s people and seized the ark of the covenant. In the same conflict the wicked sons of Eli who had besmirched his name were slain. Upon hearing of the defeat and the death of the sons, the ninety-eight year old Eli was undoubtedly shaken; but the Scriptures say that when he heard of the ark’s dislocation by the Philistines, he fell backward, broke his neck, and died. Eli’s daughter-in-law soon heard of the compounding bad news; in her condition of grief she gave birth to a son whom she named Ichabod.

She explained the name’s significance: “The glory is departed from Israel.” A nation once glorious in her relationship with God had now been brought low through the unfaithfulness of the people, priests, and priestly servants who despised the offerings of Jehovah, and a generally profane attitude toward the holy things of God. There was no glory in Israel for God’s people had left him, and God’s approval of his people had been withdrawn.

One needed observation relates to the wife of Phinehas, who named the child. Apparently she had some understanding of the will of God in some important matters that were of current concern. At a time when her own husband, his brother, Hophni, and her father-in-law, Eli, had recently manifested a lack of regard for the things of God, she knew where the glory resided. Both of the sons had sinned in fornication with the women who came to the Tabernacle and in the offerings mishandled. And Eli had failed to restrain them. It was evidently left for this wife of Phinehas to uphold the divine glory if it was to be done in this family. Based on her knowledge of what God had desired and her understanding that God had not been served, she declared in this child that “there is no glory.” May she be remembered and her faith in God and reverence for him recalled as a proper model for all time to come (Rom. 15:4). 
Similar conditions at different times can produce similar results. The glory characteristic of the Lord’s church (his family, his people) can also depart through failings of our own, not through any insufficiency on God’s part. God’s design for the church was that it be glorious, “not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). Whenever the people of God turn their backs on God and resort to the idols of their hearts, their disaffection with God becomes the means of the glory departing. Such disaffection is shown by our elevating anything of man to the level of God and his will. Our love for him must be with the whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. Entanglements with the sinful element of the world in any form can be our undoing with God, causing the glory to depart. The cares, riches, and pleasures of this life can rise up like thorns to choke out the Word (Luke 8:14). We must remember that the divine glory departs from our lives as we glory in anything defiling.

Christ’s law of entrance into the body, acceptable worship and service by his holy priests, the organizational structure of local churches, and the functional operation of local churches under local oversight in the areas identified by the head of the church are all matters included in the will of Christ set forth in the New Testament. Only when we observe his will in these and other matters do we function to his glory in the church.

When those in a local church depart from the will of Christ, they are glorifying themselves; but glorifying God they are not. Christ removes the candlestick of a local church when its glory has departed (Rev. 2:5). It no longer exists as a true church (Rev.1:20).

Any who have established an agenda of changing the Lord’s church in any way that would alter those divine features of the church must understand the inevitable result of their changes. It will be Ichabod: the glory associated with God and resulting from God will depart. This is the birth of another human religious system — denominationalism all over again. The glory has departed.

24978 Bubba Tr., Athens, Alabama 35613 bobbylgraham@juno.com

By Mason Harris

Jesus showed his intention to unite men of every nation when he said, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself” (John 12:32). To this end he said to his apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19, 20). John explained the purpose of their preaching by saying it was that “you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). There is a fellowship of men who walk in darkness. But John here speaks of a fellowship with God and fellowship with one another by virtue of the relationship with him. It is a fellowship we have by being drawn to Jesus. When people learn of Christ and are drawn to him, they would be become one with him and with one another. This is illustrated in Acts 2:41-47 where the baptized were added to the church and served the Lord together in this relationship.

Paul spoke of Christ being our peace in that he has reconciled both Jews and Gentiles to God in one body by the cross, thus making peace (Eph. 2:14-16). Peace is the end result of the gospel. Paul could then say to those who accepted Christ, “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19).

But there is somewhat of a paradox in this. Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household” (Matt. 10:34-36). Jesus did not mean to say that the purpose of his coming was to produce discord, but that such would be one of the effects of his coming. Jesus here described the result of his coming as though he had deliberately come to bring that about.
Loyalty to the law of Moses made it difficult for many to see members of their family accept Jesus as the Christ. And no doubt it was much the same way among the pagans when members of their family accepted Christ. It is the same way now with many who are deeply involved in the denominational world. They do not want to see members of their family becoming members of the church of Christ. Jesus knew that sharp differences would arise between those who accept and those who reject him. It was so in the first century. It is so now.

I was asked to write an article under the above title as part of a review of LaGard Smith’s book, Who Is My Brother? My assignment comes from Chapter 2 where Smith quotes from a speaker who used Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell to support the view of a fellowship that extends to all believers in Jesus, even though they have not been baptized. As I understand Smith on this point, he was critical of the speaker for his reference to these men and used the latter portion of the chapter to show these men were quoted out of context. Regarding this point, we are in agreement.

For a long time I have been concerned about the danger of some trying to restore the restoration movement with all its imperfections, rather than seeking to restore New Testament Christianity. This reference rekindles my fear. It reminds me of my school days when I was learning to write. Across the top of the chalkboard, and sometimes on my sheet of paper, there was a perfect example of the alphabet as the letters should be written. As line after line was written below the perfect example, the writing looked less like the original as I progressed down the page. Why? Because as I wrote each new line, I was looking at the imperfect example just above, and not at the perfect example at the top of the page. The restoration leaders of the 19th century did a wonderful work as they worked their way out of the denominational world that grew out of the reformation in Europe. But the perfect pattern for us to follow is the New Testament. While we might like to speak in defense of Stone or Campbell, it is not important to our work to know what they said or meant. Our concern must always be: What does the Bible say? We do not have to live with any mistakes that may have been made by any person in restoration history.

When some of the restoration leaders advocated a return to the New Testament and that alone as their rule of faith and practice, they showed their willingness to stand apart from the mainstream of religious thinking. It appears to have been with great agony that they went against family beliefs and long standing practices in the churches where they were members. They did not want the discord that resulted from preaching the gospel, but their preaching called for a separation of those who would follow the Bible only from those who were wedded to the creeds of men. Being often alienated from family and friends because of their choice, they longed for unity among those who were of the same mind. That the lines of fellowship were sometimes breached only shows the weakness of man and should not serve as examples worthy of imitation.

Does the restoration plea create division? This might lead us to ask another question, “Does the restoration plea result in the preaching of the gospel?” If so, then the restoration plea creates division in the same way the preaching of the gospel created division in the first century. It divides the believers from the unbelievers, the obedient from the disobedient. Yes, it often severs the fellowship of families. But know this: It is the ignorance and/or the rebellion of man that causes the hostility and division, and not the gospel of Christ. But in the same way that unity came out of the preaching of the gospel in the first century, the plea to speak where the Bible speaks and to remain silent where the Bible is silent will produce unity now among those who follow it. This will not be because it is a part of restoration history, but because it will be doing all things “in the name of the Lord” (Col. 3:17).

I am indebted to the leaders in the restoration movement, as well as to the courageous reformers before them, who sacrificed so much in providing me with such a background of religious instruction as I have. I read their material with gratitude and profit. But I recognize them as uninspired men, subject to mistakes as all men are. I see them as men pointing me to Jesus and to his word — the perfect way.

1006 Brookridge Ln. SE, Cullman, Alabama

By Johnny Stringer

In the epilogue of his book, Who Is My Brother?, F. LaGard Smith publishes his letter to Max Lucado containing his replies to Lucado’s book, In the Grip of Grace. Following the letter, brother Smith writes: “Having now myself gone public through the pages of this book, and having written my own letter of reply to Max, I invite similar responses from any who might wish to continue the dialogue. The crucial issues raised in this book need all the collective attention we can give them. Nothing but good can come from an honest, open searching of the Scriptures on the nature and boundaries of Christian fellowship” (254).

I applaud the spirit these words express. It is good for brethren to discuss ideas and argue their differences in an honorable and brotherly way. Accepting brother Smith’s invitation, I offer this article in response to his discussion of five levels of fellowship. He affirms that there are five categories of fellowship, which he discusses in chapters 5-9.

Universal Fellowship: The Family of Man

The first level of fellowship, discussed in chapter 6, is that which exists among all humans. We all are descendants of Adam and are brothers and sisters in the family of man. We share the human experience, render aid to one another, and participate with fellow humans in various endeavors of common interest (e.g., PTA). As Christians, we are concerned for the spiritual well-being of our fellow humans, and we seek to lead them to Christ.

There is little with which I would take issue in the discussion of universal fellowship. Certainly there is a bond and a relationship that all humans share. This relationship is a kind of fellowship, but it is not the kind that is described in the Scriptures. The term is used in the Scriptures to describe the relationship of those who adhere to the declarations of the apostles (1 John 1:3).

Faith Fellowship: Like Family

Chapter 7 discusses a level of fellowship that the author describes as “faith fellowship.” This is fellowship with those who believe in Christ but have not been biblically baptized. This level of fellowship is higher than “universal fellowship,” but it falls short of “in Christ” fellowship (to be discussed later).

Brother Smith says that these unbaptized believers are not “family,” but  they are “like family.” The description, “like family,” is not identical to Ketcherside’s “brothers in prospect,” but it does have a similar ring to it. Explaining this description, he writes, “In virtually every way they think and act as those in the family would think and act” (106). Really? Do they think and act as those in the family? Their thinking utterly rejects what Jesus said to do to be saved as well as the need for scriptural authority in religion, and their actions in worship and service to God are not governed by his word. Such thinking and acting is certainly not appropriate for the family of God.

I was surprised to find that our brother uses the incident recorded in Mark 9:38-41 to provide a scriptural basis for “faith fellowship.” John reported that he and the other apostles had seen a man casting out demons. They had forbidden him to do so “because he followeth not us.” Jesus corrected John’s error. The fact that the man was not among those traveling in Jesus’ immediate company was no reason to forbid him to perform miracles in the name of Jesus. This man was not comparable to those who are involved in unscriptural religious systems. There is no hint that he rejected any portion of divine truth or was involved in any false religious activities.

Brother Smith believes that we should appreciate and value unbaptized believers. Indeed, we may benefit from some of the accomplishments of those in religious error, but our brother makes some comments that both astound and appall me. Read his words and think: “Globally, it is hard to overestimate the good that has been done by Anglican and Roman Catholic missionaries in civilizing pagan cultures. (Their notorious errors and excesses pale when compared to the good done.)” (109). I am not able to comprehend how a man of LaGard Smith’s knowledge could make such an assertion. These false religious systems teach errors that lead souls away from Christ and into the eternal agonies of hell. Does that horrible fact pale when compared to the material good that they have done. Is the fact that they lead souls to eternal damnation outweighed by the fact that they have civilized some cultures?

Expressing his appreciation for the fellowship he enjoys with unbaptized believers, brother Smith writes: “I recently shared with my colleagues on the law school faculty my distress at having come to the conclusion that I had more of a spiritual bonding with a visiting professor who is Catholic than I have with some of my colleagues who are baptized members of the Lord’s church” (113-114). The author thus reflects his assessment of the law professors at Pepperdine. I am thankful that I have through the years enjoyed association with more spiritual brethren.

Extolling the spirituality and commitment of certain unbaptized believers, brother Smith writes of the edification he receives from his fellowship with them. I have a different viewpoint. Brother Smith is talking about people who profess faith in Christ but reject his conditions for salvation, teach others to reject those conditions, and engage in human religious practices rather than those that are divinely revealed. I am not even comfortable calling them believers when they do not believe what the Lord has taught us to do to be saved. I do not share with them a common faith and I do not consider myself to be in fellowship with them. I commend them for their zeal, but they and I are going in different directions. Despite brother Smith’s talk of their devotion and commitment, their devotion and commitment have not been sufficiently strong to lead them to reject their human doctrines and religious systems and be guided by God’s word. When people renounce fundamental truths of the gospel and vigorously oppose faithful saints who teach those truths, I do not consider them to be “like family.” “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

“In Christ” Fellowship: The Extended Family

This is the fellowship we have with all who have been scripturally immersed. It includes those with whom we have serious doctrinal differences and those who have gone into sin. It is true that these are brethren in God’s family. Nevertheless, we must not extend the “right hand of fellowship” to those who teach doctrines that condemn souls or engage unrepentantly in sin. We must not give the impression that we endorse their teaching or conduct or that we regard them to be right with God (2 John 9-11; Eph. 5:11). The Bible does not teach that the faithful are in fellowship with those in sin (2 Cor. 6:14).

In his discussion of this level of fellowship, brother Smith discusses those who are baptized without understanding its significance. They should be taught the true meaning of baptism, he says, but then they may be regarded as brethren and given the right hand of fellowship. I believe that in order for baptism to be biblical, it must be for the biblical reason: the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Being baptized without understanding its significance is of no more value than eating the Lord’s supper without understanding its significance. Repentant believers who were baptized for the remission of sins are my brethren.

Conscience Fellowship: Close Family

Brother Smith says that conscience fellowship “provides elbow-room for the exercise of individual and collective conscience” (78). Certainly, allowance must be made for differences of conscience in our personal lives. However, we are not free to tolerate practices that are clearly sinful. Our brother recognizes this fact, acknowledging that “there are some doctrines too obviously ungodly to leave to others’ conscientious understanding” (143). He mentions, for example, homosexual marriages and “also heterosexual re-marriages that violate Jesus’ clear teaching” (143). In fact, he avers, “Such obvious sin cannot simply be a matter of individual or congregational conscience” (144).

Having said that, however, brother Smith warns of the danger of confusing sin with doctrinal differences. As I understand it, he believes that if someone’s doctrinal belief leads him to believe that a remarriage is not adulterous, then allowance should be made for his view. That puts the matter on the level of a doctrinal difference rather than sin. He asserts that we may be guilty of “accusing others of tolerating adultery without acknowledging that, if the other person is right about the remarriage not being adulterous, then there is no sin at all being tolerated” (146). Brother Smith does not discuss whether he would make the same allowance for those whose doctrinal beliefs lead them to believe that homosexual marriages are acceptable. Those inclined to accept his position would do well to consider this point. If the Bible clearly condemns a practice, the fact that some brethren do not accept that teaching does not make the practice any less sinful or any more worthy of acceptance.

Brother Smith also discusses differences among congregations due to diversity of conscience regarding congregational practices. He says, “If the extended family must at times be separated into enclaves of conscience fellowship, it can never be at the expense of koinonia fellowship. We must still care. We must still share.” This means “that, despite those differences, we recognize and appreciate brothers and sisters in Christ who are as much a part of the extended family as we are” (148). Regarding the division over institutionalism, he states, “Unfortunately what should have been a victory for conscience fellowship has turned out to be a colossal defeat in terms of our attitude towards those on the other side of the doctrinal fence” (150). Certainly, good attitudes must be maintained and brotherly love must continue; nevertheless, those who are involved in unscriptural practices cannot be regarded as faithful saints, and we must not speak and act as though we regard them as such.

Congregational Fellowship: Immediate Family

This is the fellowship among Christians who work and worship together in the local congregation. Brother Smith discusses the blessings of such a family relationship, but he also discusses the problems that sometimes lead one to consider departing a particular congregation. Sometimes the congregation’s activities are such that one has difficulties maintaining a good conscience while participating. Our brother shares with us that he has experienced that dilemma.

He has already given indication of the flexibility of his conscience. In chapter 7 he tells of attending a church in England and singing with an instrument despite his opposition to the use of instrumental music in worship. He consoled himself with the thought that everybody else there was singing with the instrument, but he was singing without it (103). He admits that this rationalization did not solve the problem and that the use of instrumental music marred the worship; nevertheless, he continued to worship with that church. We should not be surprised, therefore, if his conscience allows him to remain in a congregation engaging in activities he believes to be wrong. Indeed, our brother acknowledges that he has long remained with a congregation that has posed many questions of conscience.

Brother Smith sets forth six questions to consider when one is determining whether he should remain with a congregation. They are legitimate questions worthy of sober consideration. However, regardless of how good the questions are, one who is seeking to justify a particular course of action can answer them so as to justify that course. The author says, “Having struggled with these complex questions for many years now, I have somehow managed to maintain a continuing, if rocky, fellowship among brothers and sisters with whom I sometimes disagree almost as much as I love” (165).

Our brother believes that his remaining in the congregation despite his strong disagreements with its practices has enabled him to be a part of vital evangelistic work in his community. He writes, “It’s easy to be so consumed with the problems of family fellowship that we forget our far greater responsibility to bring others into the family” (165). One must consider, however, into what are we bringing these converts? When we baptize people, we should teach them to observe all our Lord’s commandments (Matt. 28:18-20), not lead them into a congregation teaching or practicing error.

In his discussion of congregational fellowship, brother Smith acknowledges that doctrinal differences may require two groups within the congregation “to go their separate ways.” When such occurs, each group should respect the conscience of the other and “continue to respect each other as fellow Christians doing their very best to follow in the steps of Christ” (166-167). He has more to say later in the chapter about our attitude toward congregations engaging in practices contrary to our conscience. He writes that “we must nevertheless honor the collective conscience of each and every other congregation” (172) and that we have no biblical right to ostracize them (173). Yet, he says that we should seek to teach them what we believe to be the truth.

In considering our attitude toward such a congregation, we must remember this: When a congregation is engaging in unscriptural activities, it is not just one individual practicing his personal conscience. The leadership is leading the whole congregation to believe and practice error. In addition, it is binding those unscriptural practices on all who would  become a part of that congregation. The congregation’s message is, if you do not join with us in these practices, you may not be a part of us. Even though we love them, we cannot be tolerant of their propagation of error. Far more than individual conscience is involved.

Brother Smith’s discussion of our attitude toward such congregations leaves me somewhat unclear as to the practical applications. Does “ostracizing” them mean that we make it clear that we regard them as unfaithful? In order to respect their collective conscience and avoid ostracizing them, must we announce the activities (Gospel Meetings, Vacation Bible Schools, etc.) of congregations we believe to be teaching and practicing error? Or if one of the elders or the preacher were an excellent song leader, would we ask him to lead singing in our Gospel Meeting? Such would surely give the impression that we regard them as faithful. Would brother Smith apply these principles to the congregation consisting of homosexuals and upholding homosexuality? If not, why not?

Conclusion

There is some good material in brother Smith’s book, but the purpose of this article has been to briefly explain what he means by the five categories of fellowship and to point out some views I believe to be in error. Fearful of misrepresenting my brother, I have diligently endeavored to be fair and accurate in dealing with what he has written.

4992 County Road 26, Rogersville, Alabama 35652 johnnys@